I just finished reading another "the sky is falling" global warming piece in our local newspaper. When I finished, I stepped out my front door and watched the snow coming down harder than I've seen it fall in several years. Sorry guys, still not buying it. In the article, Nobel prize winner Mr. Chu predicted dire consequences a few decades from now unless we change our ways. Didn't Al Gore predict a couple of decades ago that by 2013 there would be no more polar ice caps. Yeah, that didn't happen. Also in the article Mr. Chu recommended there be taxes on carbon emissions. That's what it's really all about, and people are starting to wake up to that fact. Of course the headline in the article I read made sure to include the fact that Mr. Chu is a "Nobel Prize" winner. Wow, a Nobel prize winner. So I should believe him because he won a popularity contest among his peers? He may have won the Nobel prize, but the only credentials you really need to figure things out are common sense, good observation skills, and a knack for spotting B.S. Sorry Mr. Chu, I like my credentials better than yours.

Nobel peace prize is strictly political and BS as proven by the fact that Obama won one. Even Obama was surprised. Should have mentioned that in your blog. You can probably still insert it.

Reply

Jeff

03/18/2014 10:32am

Are you really going to say that global warming or global climate change is a myth just because there has been an unusually cold and snowy winter in Tennessee this year? You do realize that weather patterns and climate are two different things, right? There have been thousands of studies done by scientists on climate and nearly all of them have come to the consensus that climate change is a reality. These men and women have devoted their lives and careers to their field of study. Do you think so many of them have it wrong? What is it about climate change that makes you so skeptical?

Reply

Chris

03/18/2014 5:21pm

I do realize that climate and weather are not the same. My comment about the snow was to simply point out irony. If you want to talk about climate, then why has the earth's climate not warmed in over 17 years.Why am I skeptical about global warming? Well, when 95% of the climate models your "climate scientists predict are wrong, it kind of ruins their credibility with me.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

Reply

Jeff

03/19/2014 9:12am

This one blog post by one scientist (who, I'm not suprised, has published books on the topic of climate change and promotes those books on his blog) is not really very helpful, in my opinion. It makes for a cute headline that I'm sure generates lots of clicks when posted on right-wing media sites, but the truth is that June 2009 to May 2010 was the hottest 12-month period on record. When talking about climate, you have to look at long term trends over many decades. There will always be those individuals and "experts" on any subject who will take the other side of an argument because there is a market full of people who buy into it.

More information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Chris

03/19/2014 8:09pm

The bottom line is this. If 'climate scientists" are to be credible, then their models and predictions would need to be proven to be correct. However, they just can't seem to get it right. Until their models and predictions prove to be accurate, then I have no reason to believe they know what they are talking about. I guess I'm just a "show me" kind of guy.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/

Reply

Jeff

03/20/2014 11:53am

Once again, you are getting weather and climate confused. There is a difference. The article you link to says that the NOAA failed to predict the weather this past winter. Alot of weather predictions are wrong, since weather can fluctuate wildly. I'll say it one more time, you have to look at the long term when talking about climate. It's easy to take a few statistics related to short term weather and climate trends out of context and say that scientists are wrong about global warming. But the overall trends show a gradual warming of the earth over time. You can keep clinging to these articles here and there that make you feel better about ignoring the facts. Did you even look at the link in my last comment? I'm trying to "Show you" that there's lots of evidence and scientific findings that back up the trends that global warming is for real.

The argument you are making would be like saying "My weather man predicted it was going to be 5 degrees warmer today than it actually was, so therefore weather men are all wrong when it comes to predicting the weather and I should just rely on my own instincts to tell me if I need to wear a jacket today."

Reply

Chris

03/21/2014 6:30am

I appreciate your link, and yes, I did look at it. There are many reasons I am skeptical about what "climate scientists" are predicting.
1) Their prediction models up to this point have been incorrect. If past models have been incorrect, then why would I believe future models would be correct?
2) It has been proven that "climate scientists" are working together to keep the data research "consistent". The recent global warming e-mail scandal is a shameful attempt by "scientists to pull the wool over the public's eye. Please take the time to read this Wall Street Journal report.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354
I am not a scientist. However, man-made global warming is not "settled science", and this is my point. The incorrect predictive models, as well as the obvious attempts to silence skeptics and fudge the data are enough for me to remain skeptical. Scientists receive grant money for espousing the global warming agenda, and this is really what it's all about. There are enough dissenters, and plenty of evidence to remain skeptical. Here is another website you may want to check out as well.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/